3 ms·

Very little evidence of these being used to any effect comparable to ATACMs

dmix 2y ago
Then you haven't been following the war closely. I watch combat videos daily and Iskander is easily their most potent weapon after Lancet drones (and artillery). Patriot can't cover the whole massive frontlines.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  The iskander and lancet drones are absolutely not used to nearly the same efficacy as atacms. Those things are regularly just hurled at low value civilian targets in large part because of poor targeting. They’re generally not the road mobile variety either. The most potent weapon in their arsenal right now in terms of battlefield value are their helicopters and glide bombs
  - dmix 2y ago
    You seem to have a narrow information bubble. I've some a large number of effective Iskander strikes. The only reason it's not pumping out only A-tier videos like ATACMS is because Patriot defends the most important assets and S-400 (or their staff) is a paper tiger that can't handle a maneuverable ballistic missile. But that hasn't stopped it from dealing some important blows and being a very valuable weapon.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      You're kinda arguing about something else, though. Ukraine is hitting Russian air defenses with ATACMS, successfully and repeatedly. Corresponding attempts with Iskanders and Kinzhals to target the Patriots have largely failed. There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenarios - in either the attacking missiles, the defending systems, or both. Ukraine doesn't have enough Patriots to defend everywhere, but they're dramatically more effective than the Russian equivalents where they are stationed. If nothing else, the war has been a huge advertising boon for Western defense contractors.
      - dmix 2y ago
        My assertion was Iskander is one of Russias best weapons, arguably more effective than Kalibr per rate of fire and very likely equivalent to ATACMS, or possibly better in terms of capabilities given it's a larger munition. > There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenario This is entirely premised on Russian air defense being equal in high value areas vs Ballistic missiles (which is easily the hardest test, even for the US). Patriot systems were tested many times IRL against SCUD missiles during Desert storm and more recently vs Iran, plus general skill available in US R&D/military, while Russia never tested their S-400 systems in (real) combat and is notorious for poor maintenance/training. Unless you equalize these 2 things it's a moot point. RU missile teams have had plenty of press about improving their operational effectiveness in the last year. AA has not. Additionally, these systems aren't that sophisticated, it's GPS+inertial navigation+maneuvering+maybe some limited anti-EW. The rest is intelligence, EW, operators, etc. ATACMS was designed in the mid 1980s after all...
      - rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > They failed so badly that Germany had to send systems they can’t spare. Again. That’s why the US is now literally requisitioning new deliveries to send them to Ukraine. "We want more! As many as you can spare!" is not typically what you say when the system sucks. There's a reason Patriot batteries are sought after, and countries are leery of loaning theirs. > “If you foolishly believed Ukrainian numbers,” you forgot to add. I mean, there's a drone video of an S-400 battery getting wiped off the map upthread. It doesn't seem to be all that unusual. > the Chinese are taking notes They would be wise to. Taiwan is as well; I'd imagine they're investing heavily in drone jet skis, Javelins, and other things the Ukranians have used well against Soviet-style weaponry.
        rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]

dmix 2y ago

Then you haven't been following the war closely. I watch combat videos daily and Iskander is easily their most potent weapon after Lancet drones (and artillery). Patriot can't cover the whole massive frontlines.

jncfhnb 2y ago
The iskander and lancet drones are absolutely not used to nearly the same efficacy as atacms. Those things are regularly just hurled at low value civilian targets in large part because of poor targeting. They’re generally not the road mobile variety either. The most potent weapon in their arsenal right now in terms of battlefield value are their helicopters and glide bombs
- dmix 2y ago
  You seem to have a narrow information bubble. I've some a large number of effective Iskander strikes. The only reason it's not pumping out only A-tier videos like ATACMS is because Patriot defends the most important assets and S-400 (or their staff) is a paper tiger that can't handle a maneuverable ballistic missile. But that hasn't stopped it from dealing some important blows and being a very valuable weapon.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    You're kinda arguing about something else, though. Ukraine is hitting Russian air defenses with ATACMS, successfully and repeatedly. Corresponding attempts with Iskanders and Kinzhals to target the Patriots have largely failed. There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenarios - in either the attacking missiles, the defending systems, or both. Ukraine doesn't have enough Patriots to defend everywhere, but they're dramatically more effective than the Russian equivalents where they are stationed. If nothing else, the war has been a huge advertising boon for Western defense contractors.
    - dmix 2y ago
      My assertion was Iskander is one of Russias best weapons, arguably more effective than Kalibr per rate of fire and very likely equivalent to ATACMS, or possibly better in terms of capabilities given it's a larger munition. > There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenario This is entirely premised on Russian air defense being equal in high value areas vs Ballistic missiles (which is easily the hardest test, even for the US). Patriot systems were tested many times IRL against SCUD missiles during Desert storm and more recently vs Iran, plus general skill available in US R&D/military, while Russia never tested their S-400 systems in (real) combat and is notorious for poor maintenance/training. Unless you equalize these 2 things it's a moot point. RU missile teams have had plenty of press about improving their operational effectiveness in the last year. AA has not. Additionally, these systems aren't that sophisticated, it's GPS+inertial navigation+maneuvering+maybe some limited anti-EW. The rest is intelligence, EW, operators, etc. ATACMS was designed in the mid 1980s after all...
    - rainworld 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > They failed so badly that Germany had to send systems they can’t spare. Again. That’s why the US is now literally requisitioning new deliveries to send them to Ukraine. "We want more! As many as you can spare!" is not typically what you say when the system sucks. There's a reason Patriot batteries are sought after, and countries are leery of loaning theirs. > “If you foolishly believed Ukrainian numbers,” you forgot to add. I mean, there's a drone video of an S-400 battery getting wiped off the map upthread. It doesn't seem to be all that unusual. > the Chinese are taking notes They would be wise to. Taiwan is as well; I'd imagine they're investing heavily in drone jet skis, Javelins, and other things the Ukranians have used well against Soviet-style weaponry.
        rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]